Should babies be baptized?

[TER]

Baptism was already ordained. Jesus baptized His disciples. Jesus blessed babies. To me that settles the issue. Just follow Jesus' example. To others not so much apparently.

Edit: And this is why I take scripture over tradition. You can get to an actual answer if you are looking for one.

Unless the Scriptures say explicitly "do not baptize babies" or "the entire household was batpized except for the children and babies", you cannot say Scripture proves your case. At this point, when Scriputre does not explicitly say, we must turn to Church tradition and the practices of the early Church as established by the apostolic fathers to gleam more insight into the truth.

 

[jmdrake]

Only if you ignore what it means to believe in Christ. The reason the faithful are saved is because they obey Christ who, just a few verses before this one in John 3:3-5 had this exchange:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

or as the Resurrected Christ put it in Mark 16:16-

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

The faithful are saved because they obey what Christ asks of them, including being baptized. You cannot be saved in the kingdom of God unless you become born again in Spirit and water, baptism and the receiving of the Holy Ghost. To claim one of those elements is unnecessary for salvation is to directly contradict the scripture. Even Paul attested that the spiritual rebirth needed for salvation, what kills the old man of sin and allows us to be reborn as new men and women in Christ was and is baptism (Romans 6:1-6). The only way one can draw the conclusion that belief is all you need to be saved can only do so by ignoring the mountain of scriptures that testify otherwise. Just as James points out in James 2:19, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble," yet they are not saved by faith alone.

I think you are missing her point which actually dovetails yours. While God expects us to walk in faith and act on our belief, He does not hold it against anyone who never gets the opportunity to act on that belief. That's the lesson of the thief on the cross. Had Jesus' decided to miraculously save his life, he would have gotten baptized. Baptism of infants out of fear that they might be lost gives a distorted view of God. Baptism of infants because that's just what you want to do isn't itself bad, but it's not what Jesus did. Jesus baptized disciples and blessed infants.

 

[jmdrake]

Unless the Scriptures say explicitly "do not baptize babies" or "the entire household was batpized except for the children and babies", you cannot say Scripture proves your case. At this point, when Scriputre does not explicitly say, we must turn to Church tradition and the practices of the early Church as established by the apostolic fathers to gleam more insight into the truth.

Do you believe in following Jesus' example? The scriptures say that when babies were brought to Him, He prayed for them, put His hands on them and blessed them. The scriptures also say that Jesus baptized His disciples. If Christianity is about following Christ then why do we need an explicit command on what not to do when He gave us examples of what to do? There is no ambiguity in this case.

 

[TER]

Here is Origen, one of the most brilliant and prolific Christian writers in early Church history: (Circa 248)

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants."

 

[jmdrake]

Good morning!

Good morning. Thanks for the references. I already read them at newadvent.org. Looking forward to your 5th century controversy reference as I wasn't able to find that one.

 

[TER]

Do you believe in following Jesus' example? The scriptures say that when babies were brought to Him, He prayed for them, put His hands on them and blessed them. The scriptures also say that Jesus baptized His disciples. If Christianity is about following Christ then why do we need an explicit command on what not to do when He gave us examples of what to do? There is no ambiguity in this case.

Some people need explicit commands to be explicitly write down before they can believe anything. Funny, that the Church didn't have a NT for some time in the beginning. Also, not everything Christ or the Apostles did was written in the NT. Also, after the Day of Pentecost, the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit began to establish its rules and doctrines and traditions, which included baptizing "entire households". I don't know about you, but I consider my children part of my household .

 

[jmdrake]

Here is Origen, one of the most brilliant and prolific Christian writers in early Church history: (Circa 248)

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants."

And this is where I take what is clear in scripture over tradition just as you don't accept the tradition of the identity of Babylon.

 

[jmdrake]

Some people need explicit commands to be explicitly write down before they can believe anything. Funny, that the Church didn't have a NT for some time in the beginning. Also, not everything Christ or the Apostles did was written in the NT. Also, after the Day of Pentecost, the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit began to establish its rules and doctrines and traditions, which included baptizing "entire households". I don't know about you, but I consider my children part of my household .

I have children in my household as well. They are't infants though. There is only mention of the baptism of 4 household in the NT. In one of those households it says that everyone in the household believed. So either there were no infants (children too young to express belief) or Luke was only counting people old enough to believe. Either way, the household argument is weak.

 

[TER]

Good morning. Thanks for the references. I already read them at newadvent.org. Looking forward to your 5th century controversy reference as I wasn't able to find that one.

I was working from memory. I will need to find it... (Btw, it was not a big controversy by any stretch of the imagination. I learned about it while reading a text of Church History and they mentioned it regarding a certain bishop I believe in North Africa who started to change the apostolic tradition and prohibit infants from being baptized. It was a local phenomenon that went nowhere because the catholic Church spread everywhere knew the guy was changing a tradition which was apostolic and which was based on poor theology).

 

[TER]

And this is where I take what is clear in scripture over tradition just as you don't accept the tradition of the identity of Babylon.

Did you get good sleep last night jmdrake?

 

[TER]

I have children in my household as well. They are't infants though. There is only mention of the baptism of 4 household in the NT. In one of those households it says that everyone in the household believed. So either there were no infants (children too young to express belief) or Luke was only counting people old enough to believe. Either way, the household argument is weak.

OR there were young children or infants and you are completely wrong and the early Church Fathers who lived much closer to the time of the apostles are right. Don't want to forget that possibility.

 

[jmdrake]

Did you get good sleep last night jmdrake?

Pretty good.

OR there were young children or infants and you are completely wrong and the early Church Fathers who lived much closer to the time of the apostles are right. Don't want to forget that possibility.

The early church fathers said there were infants in the household of the Philipi jailer? How did these infants believe? The Bible clearly says that his entire household believed. Reference please.

Edit: And you can't chastise me for thinking the early fathers may have gotten something wrong when you believe they may have gotten something wrong.

Edit: Also note that Iraneus didn't say anything about infant baptism. He said that Jesus went through each stage of life including being an infant.

 

[TER]

Pretty good.



The early church fathers said there were infants in the household of the Philipi jailer? Reference please because I think you made that up.

The Apostles baptized MANY entire households, and the witness of the Church is that infant baptism was acceptable and commonplace. If it's wasn't acceptable and commonplace and considered to be apostolic, then it would not have been so widespreadly accepted by the early Church and the Church Fathers. I am sorry you can't see that or understand that and you take a strictly (one-sided interpretative) Solo Scriptural approach to this topic and make it into such a big deal. Christ said not to hinder the children from coming to Him. There is no greater gift to a baby than to be baptized in Christ.

 

[Ronin Truth]

If it's important to the parents and they want it for their child and themselves, I'd say sure, go for it. Why not?

 

[jmdrake]

The Apostles baptized MANY entire households, and the witness of the Church is that infant baptism was acceptable and commonplace.

I can only find Bible examples of 4. Are you going by Bible or tradition when you say many? In one of the 4 it is clear that everyone in the household believed. Do you have an explanation for what that means? Or are you just going to ignore that point?

Christ said not to hinder the children from coming to Him. There is no greater gift to a baby than to be baptized in Christ.

And right after Jesus said "Let the children come to Me", He blessed them! Why would Jesus hold back the "greater gift" and merely bless the children if He should have baptized them? Side question, why improve on Jesus? Did these babies that Jesus bless receive a lesser gift than the babies who were later baptized?

 

[jmdrake]

If it's important to the parents and they want it for there child and themselves, I'd say sure, go for it. Why not?

Sure. I agree. It's only a controversy when people say it's a requirement. Others are happy to follow the example of Jesus and bless their babies. No big deal.

 

[TER]

I can only find Bible examples of 4. Are you going by Bible or tradition when you say many? In one of the 4 it is clear that everyone in the household believed. Do you have an explanation for what that means? Or are you just going to ignore that point?

And right after Jesus said "Let the children come to Me", He blessed them! Why would Jesus hold back the "greater gift" and merely bless the children if He should have baptized them? Side question, why improve on Jesus? Did these babies that Jesus bless receive a lesser gift than the babies who were later baptized?

Jmdrake, I am washed up from all the debates the past couple of days. I really don't want to start my morning arguing about this right now. It is fine if you do not accept infant baptism. We believe differently. That's okay! Best of luck to both of us! May God bless us and every on this forum! I was hoping to have a calm day today, so please forgive me that I will drop this topic for now.

 

[TER]

Sure. I agree. It's only a controversy when people say it's a requirement. Others are happy to follow the example of Jesus and bless their babies. No big deal.

BTW, no one said it is a requirement. Infant baptism isn't a requirement in the Church. Just wanted to make sure that is clarified if that is one of the issues you are having.

 

[amy31416]

What does it hurt? My aunt is a serious Catholic, and she baptized my daughter. I would never try to take that away from her or be upset about it--she'd lost two sisters in one year and finds comfort in her faith, she finds comfort in my daughter because she takes after my mother.

If, she'd taken a kid and had him circumcised against the parents wishes, that's one thing, but how does it harm a child in any way that they care enough to baptize them?

 

[donnay]

Only if you ignore what it means to believe in Christ. The reason the faithful are saved is because they obey Christ who, just a few verses before this one in John 3:3-5 had this exchange:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

This simply means to be born of women, as in the flesh. There is three earth ages; the first was the spiritual age--mankind did not exist in the flesh. All souls were created in the first earth age. It was in this earth age when Satan allowed his pride to overcome him. He wanted to be in the mercy seat to the right of God. God was angry by the fact that Satan tried to overthrow God. So he destroyed the earth with water (Not to be confused with the flood of Noah), this is called the Katabole.

The second earth age started with Genesis 1:2

This is the age where all souls would be born of the women suspended for 9 months in water. Each soul that was born through the women was given "free will" and would have a choice to worship God, or Satan.

The three earth ages
http://biblestudysite.com/begin.htm